Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (an organization that was established in a country premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression), appears to have coined a new talking point.
Dan Barker has based his career as an atheist activist and certainly bases his argument from authority to condemn the Bible upon being an ex-pastor.
When it comes to morality, Freethought / Humanism require one to act within certain parameters, at least in theory.
This is granted as the very concept of morality presupposes, by definition, certain parameters, at least in theory.
But why reference “Freethought / Humanism” and why state “at least in theory”?
I think that the only thing to be said is that this speaks for itself…
No this little clip does not get to the substance, the meat, of the debate with James White (of Alpha and Omega Ministries) but it is just quite the oddity especially considering that Dan Barker has engaged in hundreds of debates.
US Postal Service due to issue a stamp commemorating Mother Teresa, a proposal to which Freedom From Religion Foundation is objecting.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation was established in the USA which is a nation that was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression.
I only imagined pondering the question due to the very fact that Dan Barker is that which he detests. He does not seem to recognize that he exhibits very same characteristics which he condemns in others.
Perhaps self loathing is too great an inference (even conceptually) yet, hypocritical and contradictory most certainly fit the bill.
At least that is the headline which I expect any day now since Barack Obama has broken the first demand-ment of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: thou shall not display “religious” objects/sentiments on government property.
Too bad that Thomas Jefferson knew of no such law.
Barack Obama’s administration’s House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), is making statements in keeping with advancing theocracy in North American government—again.
I term is theocracy because as per her previous statements and the response of watchdog (or, is it watchgod) groups who keep a close, sharp and keen eye on any hint at a breaking of the non-Constitutional separation of church and state.
True Freethinker now presents various famous atheist quotes, not so famous atheist quotes and infamous atheist quotes and, for good measure, a few quotes about atheists and atheism by non-atheists (aatheists?)
How To Be Ethical Without a God: At 33:49 into part 1 Dan Barker explains his ethical viewpoint:
How can I summarize how we naturalists know how to be ethical without a God? Here it is, it's very simple. It's a principle, it's not a rule, it's a principle. If you intend to act in a way that minimizes harm by your actions in the real world, then by definition you can be called an ethical person. If you don't intend to act in a way that minimizes harm you are not ethical…